The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[GUT]

Hi there,

Yes, and perhaps the worst thing of them all is the unknown unknowns coming in the shape of knowing pretending to be knowledge. I find a lot of that here.

Amos Simpson? No. I donīt even know who that is.

Kind regards, Pierre

More proof of total ignorance, but he cracked it.

[Rosella]

Pierre,
If Robert Paul was told by Cross that he had seen a policeman sitting/standing over the body of a woman in Bucks Row, as you allege in your scenario, how come Paul never said a word about the story to the police or when giving testimony at the inquest?

This copper must have been extraordinarily silent. Paul was only a very short distance behind Cross in going down the road yet there was no noise of hobnail boots retreating in the quiet street.

[Pierre]

Thanks Pierre. Never heard of Amos Simpson? Well, I never. According to Russell Edwards, who apparently has incontrovertible DNA evidence linking Kosminksi to Eddowes murder, he removed Eddowes Shawl from being he murder scene, keeping it as a somewhat macabre memento. Personally, as he was an Islington officer, I think the only way he could have been in More Square at the relevant time is if he was parachuted in via a prototype helicopter.

Well, I found an article in the British Newspaper Archives that told a little romantic story about Eddowes walking towards her death having a shawl on her head in the cold night. It was a fantasy story that a journalist made up and that story could have been the start of the myth of the shawl.

Am I allowed a second guess? If so, what about Sergeant William Thick, otherwise known as "Johnny Upright"? There are suggestions he might have been a corrupt officer and he lived close to both the Stride murder site and the site of the discovery of the Pinchin Street Torso.

No, it is not him. And I have always thought that living close to the murder sites means nothing. Serial killers usually donīt pick their victims close to their homes.

In fact, the day the Torso was discovered a Mr HT Haslewood of Tottenham wrote a letter to the Home Office stating, "I have very good grounds to believe the person who has committed the Whitechapel murders is a member of the police force." A month later he sent a second letter naming Thick as JtR.

I see.

Interstingly, I believe Sergeant Thick was the only police officer at the time to be accused of being the Ripper.

Interesting. I guess it wasnīt a favourite type of suspect.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,
If Robert Paul was told by Cross that he had seen a policeman sitting/standing over the body of a woman in Bucks Row, as you allege in your scenario, how come Paul never said a word about the story to the police or when giving testimony at the inquest?

Hi Rosella,

No idea. But I think the question of the policeman was no big issue at that time. People just came in and testified. The police knew that witnesses could misremember or lie. So I donīt think it was a big deal. It has BECOME a big deal in our own time and that is thanks to Fisherman. He has overemphasized the importance of this statment and constructed the so called "Mizen scam" from it. If he hadnīt, I would never had found it and hypothesized that Lehcmere became a witness to the killer at the murder site. And it is nothing I use as evidence. For me, Lechmere could have seen the killer or he didnīt. No big thing, not even a small thing. But a bit funny if it confirms the theory. Thatīs all.

This copper must have been extraordinarily silent. Paul was only a very short distance behind Cross in going down the road yet there was no noise of hobnail boots retreating in the quiet street.

A murderer would probably be careful about not making noises and not beeing seen. If they fail they could fail on one thing or on both.

Regards Pierre

[MysterySinger]

Pierre,
If Robert Paul was told by Cross that he had seen a policeman sitting/standing over the body of a woman in Bucks Row, as you allege in your scenario, how come Paul never said a word about the story to the police or when giving testimony at the inquest?

This copper must have been extraordinarily silent. Paul was only a very short distance behind Cross in going down the road yet there was no noise of hobnail boots retreating in the quiet street.

Just a question - who, at the time, said there was no noise of hobnail boots retreating in the quiet street?

[John G]

Interesting. I guess it wasnīt a favourite type of suspect.

Regards Pierre

Interstingly, Thick has also been accused of trying to frame John Pizer, aka Leather Apron, an earlier suspect to the Whitechapel murders, whom Thick arrested.

By the way, sorry about the typos in my earlier post-I'm starting to really dislike the unpredictable predictive text feature!

[MysterySinger]

Pierre - do you think the marks on Eddowes face could be related to the mark on Mary Jane Kelly's hand, clearly visible in MJK3 (or, heaven forbid, the same shape as the clump of clothes, blanket or whatever it is on the table behind)?

[MysterySinger]

The hand closer in....

[Rosella]

Cross said at the inquest that he heard Paul approaching 40 yards away (boots on the road.) He also stated that he saw no policeman in Bucks Row. Paul stated at the inquest that he had neither heard nor seen anyone running away as he entered Bucks Row.
It is true that neither man was questioned about hobnail boots. However these boots made a noise as people walked or ran, one of the reasons why police later in the Ripper hunt put pieces of rubber or leather over the hobnails so they could move without sound. Neither man heard the sound of anyone retreating in the other direction from Buck's Row as they were looking at the body, or they would almost certainly have said so.

Cross said that he had heard neither a person or a vehicle leaving when he got to where Polly's body was situated. (PC Neil was never far away from Bucks Row and didn't see or hear anything either.)

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

on the 20th September you posted:


“When you ask me a question I will tell you if I cannot answer it. Otherwise I will answer truthfully. “

Given that you have now given information to this forum, which disguised the fact that a group of persons were of the same profession as the killer; have you not shown that post to be meaningless?
By so doing you have diminished whatever level of credibility as a researcher you believe you have.
If you think credibility is not important, how can call yourself a scientific researcher .

Can i ask if you done the same thing about the identity of your suspect?
That is, there have had several officers/officials about whom, you have been specifically asked if they are your suspect. you have always said no.

In plan English, have you said a specific individual is not your suspect when they in fact are.

[Pierre]

Pierre - do you think the marks on Eddowes face could be related to the mark on Mary Jane Kelly's hand, clearly visible in MJK3 (or, heaven forbid, the same shape as the clump of clothes, blanket or whatever it is on the table behind)?

Hi MysterySinger,

I am always very careful when it comes to connecting different sources to each other. So I must say that I donīt "think" that the marks could be connected, but I would say that it is something we could try as an hypothesis.

How we could test it is another thing. It is harder in the case of Kelly than in the case of Eddowes, since there is only ONE such mark that we can see in this picture of Kelly. In the case of Eddowes there were two such marks and over them other cuts (in the eyelids).

The bundle on the table I would presume has got nothing to do with any message or sign given from the killer. It would be too far fetched to presume such I thing, I think. And for him to create so many communications in one murder site would be both redundant and maybe what we could call overambitious. And it would therefore set aside the killing an mutilations as his primary goal, at least that is what I think at this point.

Really good questions by the way. And I also appreciate that you discuss things that are really found at the murder sites. To many ripperologists have created their theories from other sources, often just pointing out why their suspect had a possibility to be the killer, but not connecting him to any of the murder sites.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

The hand closer in....

Hi again MysterySinger,

When I see this picture of the mark on Kellyīs hand that you posted I would almost like to say that I think it is a chevron. Why? Because he posed her hand in a very specific way, creating a focus on it. He might have done this exactly to get the policeīs attention and make them see the chevron.

On the other hand, I know that Kellyīs body was terribly mutilated and this means that the hand could have been cut in many different ways. On the other hand, if one thinks that, one could also dispute the cuts on Eddowes face and say they were just a result of his ferocious cutting. But I do not think they were since they were symmetrical and therefore must have been intentionally constructed.

Also, knowing that he communicated with the police, I am leaning towards an hypothesis that the mark on Kellyīs hand is something he wanted the police to see and understand. And I would say that we can also assume he did that to make the police recognize him from the mutilations on Eddowes.

At least that is an hypothesis. Thanks MysterySinger. You are smart.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,

on the 20th September you posted:


“When you ask me a question I will tell you if I cannot answer it. Otherwise I will answer truthfully. “

Given that you have now given information to this forum, which disguised the fact that a group of persons were of the same profession as the killer; have you not shown that post to be meaningless?
By so doing you have diminished whatever level of credibility as a researcher you believe you have.
If you think credibility is not important, how can call yourself a scientific researcher .

Can i ask if you done the same thing about the identity of your suspect?
That is, there have had several officers/officials about whom, you have been specifically asked if they are your suspect. you have always said no.

In plan English, have you said a specific individual is not your suspect when they in fact are.

Hi Steve,

As a researcher you have no duty to reveal you results if you donīt want to. But this is not even a question here, since I am not working with this case on the university but privately. I am doing it all in my own spare time. But that is not your question. Your question is:

Can we trust Pierre?

I will give you the correct answer, Steve. No. You can not "trust" Pierre. Because Pierre might be wrong. And if I am wrong, then my theory is of no interest and my so called "suspect" (a word I donīt want to use for several reasons) was not the killer I think I have found. But if he was, you will get to know it. And then you can of course trust me.

Now, it is of no importance that I have changed my mind from not wanting to tell you the profession of the killer to telling it. Because you will know who he was if he was the killer.

And Steve - did you read my post on the social class of Jack the Ripper? Go back and read it my friend and you will understand if the person I think was the killer could be any of the suggested policemen.

Now you have the class and the profession of the killer.

Kind Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

As a researcher you have no duty to reveal you results if you donīt want to. But this is not even a question here, since I am not working with this case on the university but privately. I am doing it all in my own spare time. But that is not your question. Your question is:

Can we trust Pierre?

I will give you the correct answer, Steve. No. You can not "trust" Pierre. Because Pierre might be wrong. And if I am wrong, then my theory is of no interest and my so called "suspect" (a word I donīt want to use for several reasons) was not the killer I think I have found. But if he was, you will get to know it. And then you can of course trust me.

Now, it is of no importance that I have changed my mind from not wanting to tell you the profession of the killer to telling it. Because you will know who he was if he was the killer.

And Steve - did you read my post on the social class of Jack the Ripper? Go back and read it my friend and you will understand if the person I think was the killer could be any of the suggested policemen.

Now you have the class and the profession of the killer.

Kind Regards, Pierre

Your post fails to answer the main point I am asking you.

This is not about whether you tell people about your theory. that is your right. as you say you have no duty to reveal anything.
I note you seem to draw a difference between academic research and that you do in your own time. I wonder why, there is still a moral duty not to mislead.

You then give an answer, which is obviously aimed at deflecting the question.

You say not to trust you because you may be wrong?
Only when you are proved right will you be trusted?
You say if you are wrong then your theory is of no interest, that is not true, while your conclusion may be wrong, the research done may have great interest in itself.
If you are wrong why should that make you untrustworthy?
You can be wrong, and still be trusted.

Perhaps this says much about your scathing attitude to most who have written on the subject: they have not found the answer as you are fond of telling us, therefore they are wrong....... cannot be trusted? is that how you see it?

You do appear to have an elitist attitude, in your very early posts, you question the research credentials of several very respected Writers.
The basis for this appeared to be, had they been to University? did they have degrees? you informed us you had several.

You then go on to tell me to read a thread and I will know it could be any named official. by the way what is the significance of "official" rather than "officer", if any?
Well in the "Halloween" thread, you denied specific names.
Are you saying that denial was not true?

I have reached the point where I truly no longer care about the id of your suspect, and if you think he may have been the killer, then you suspect him so he is Your suspect.

What does concerns me is when someone posts a very large number of threads, claims to be a scientific researcher (what ever that means) and makes statements such as:

“When you ask me a question I will tell you if I cannot answer it. Otherwise I will answer truthfully. “

And then does not hold to that Statement.

That raises the issue of credibility, that is all my last few posts have been about, which you obviously do not want to discuss.

sorry there was one post about if you had seen a picture of the person you don't want to call a suspect. which you answered promptly.

thank you

[Pierre]

Your post fails to answer the main point I am asking you.

This is not about whether you tell people about your theory. that is your right. as you say you have no duty to reveal anything.
I note you seem to draw a difference between academic research and that you do in your own time. I wonder why, there is still a moral duty not to mislead.

I agree with you.

You then give an answer, which is obviously aimed at deflecting the question.

You say not to trust you because you may be wrong?

Naturally. The question about who the killer was is too important to lie about or to mislead people. That is one reason I donīt read ripperology. It is constantly misleading, with or without having intentions of it.

Only when you are proved right will you be trusted?

Naturally. If I am right you will know this. I donīt even trust myself. I have to constantly question everything I do or else my methods will be insufficient and the results wrong.

You say if you are wrong then your theory is of no interest, that is not true, while your conclusion may be wrong, the research done may have great interest in itself.

I donīt think so. Because my data sources are strictly connected to one special person. And every valid and reliable source I have is pointing to this person. So they canīt point to someone else or give information about someone else.

I will tell you one thing, Steve, that I havenīt been writing about before. I am not sure anyone can understand this and if they donīt, it is only because I have no possibility to be clearer than I am about it.

I have found this person several times. The first time I found him I had many doubts. The second time I found him there were explanations added to the findings which explained things I doubted when I first found him. And after this I found data sources that matched both his profile and other independent data sources perfectly. There were moments when I was amazed. And I thought that "this is to good to be true" that is, the sources are matching each other perfectly. Because when I say "good" I donīt think it is a good thing that I think I have found him, but I mean that the sources corroborated each other.

If you are wrong why should that make you untrustworthy?
You can be wrong, and still be trusted.

But I could not be trusted for having found the killer. And that is what I think I might have done. I may be trusted for other things but they are not important in this forum.

Perhaps this says much about your scathing attitude to most who have written on the subject: they have not found the answer as you are fond of telling us, therefore they are wrong....... cannot be trusted? is that how you see it?


If they are wrong I trust they are wrong. They might also be nice persons and I can trust that. For instance, I trust that you are a nice person but I also trust that you take an interest in Jack the Ripper as a hobby, since that is what you have told me.

You do appear to have an elitist attitude, in your very early posts, you question the research credentials of several very respected Writers.
The basis for this appeared to be, had they been to University? did they have degrees? you informed us you had several.

Yes, it is sad, isnīt it? I trust social researchers and historians to be the most reliable persons for writing research reports, articles or books on serial killers. But I donīt trust them to be good surgeons. Or hairdressers. Perhaps that is an elitist attitude. And if this bothers you, I am truly sorry. I donīt want to annoy you. I think you are a good person.

You then go on to tell me to read a thread and I will know it could be any named official. by the way what is the significance of "official" rather than "officer", if any?

I just stick to one concept to be as clear as possible.

Well in the "Halloween" thread, you denied specific names.
Are you saying that denial was not true?

The name of the person I think was the killer is not in the known sources, Steve.

I have reached the point where I truly no longer care about the id of your suspect, and if you think he may have been the killer, then you suspect him so he is Your suspect.

He is not "my suspect". He was a f-g creep who terrorized people, not only in Spitalfields, and he wanted everyone to be scared of him. He also was very proud of what he did. And if I have really found him, I am going to do what he would have wanted me to do: tell everyone his name.

What does concerns me is when someone posts a very large number of threads, claims to be a scientific researcher (what ever that means) and makes statements such as:

“When you ask me a question I will tell you if I cannot answer it. Otherwise I will answer truthfully. “

And then does not hold to that Statement.

That raises the issue of credibility, that is all my last few posts have been about, which you obviously do not want to discuss.

I am trying, Steve. So if you want to trust me I can only tell you that I am not a liar since I have no reason for lying. But I canīt say everything I want to say. And this is painful.

sorry there was one post about if you had seen a picture of the person you don't want to call a suspect. which you answered promptly.

thank you

Thank you, Steve. I enjoy discussing with you.

Regards Pierre